At scale you cannot run it on a pi.  Bandwidth costs eat majority of costs.   Subsidizing costs via inflation just changed who pays, it does not get rid of costs. 

For the foreseeable future, yes, because Peercoin is meant as a backbone currency, not for everyday transactions like Bitcoin. That's why Peershares and Nubits do not run on the Peercoin blockchain.


Hi bytemaster,

I may sound a bit harsh in this post, but please read it to the end. I very much respect the hard work you do for Bitshares, although I am not quite knowledgeable about it yet.

But the whole point you are making in your blog post is pointless in my opinion, and it seems you are building up a strawman argument to draw attention away from other respected cryptoprojects to benefit your own.
Security of any of the major Proof-of-stake systems is much higher than in PoW systems and network costs are minimal in any Proof-of-stake system. Why are there several hundred nodes online in both Nxt and Peercoin if it is too expensive to run a node as you say?
So that's why I regard the whole argument of your blog post about the network costs of Nxt, Peercoin and Bitshares as a strawman-argument. 

Such a strategy may seem favourable to you in the short term, but for Crypto as a whole this is not wise.

I may remind you that we have got a hard time in crypto, because our real enemy are central banks, but the Bitcoin-weapon has some flaws.
We are already in a situation where in the short and medium term no Crypto 2.0 project will be able to surpass Bitcoin because there are simply too many. So people stick with Bitcoin regardless of its flaws.

And with a blog post like your's you aren't doing crypto any good.
We shouldn't become like the Judean people's front and the people's front of Judea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE